Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 57–61 | Cite as

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in the porcine model

  • N. J. Soper
  • L. M. Brunt
  • D. L. Dunnegan
  • T. A. Meininger
Technique

Abstract

Our aim was to assess the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in an animate model. After developing the technique in acute animal experiments, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was performed in five young domestic pigs. Five trocars were used (2–10 mm, 2–12 mm, 1–11 mm) for video laparoscopic access to the peritoneal cavity. The operations were performed without complication in 62-95 min (mean±SEM, 77±7 min). Each animal tolerated oral feedings on the first postoperative day and subsequently gained 6–11 kg (10±2 kg) in the 4-7-week interval prior to sacrifice. Although there was a significant increase in serum amylase on the first postoperative day, this was associated with a comparable increase in hematocrit, possibly representing hemoconcentration. The weight of the laparoscopically resected pancreatic segment ranged from 16 to 36 g (19±2 g) while that of the pancreatic head at sacrifice was 13-29 g (21±3 g). At the time of sacrifice, there were few intraabdominal adhesions and no evidence of fluid collection or pancreatitis. The staple line across the body of the pancreas was grossly intact in all animals. We conclude that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in the porcine model is feasible and safe. It may therefore be possible to perform laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in humans.

Key words

Pancreatectomy Laparoscopic surgery Porcine model 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Attwood SEA, Hill ADK, Murphy PG, Thornton J, Stephens RB (1992) A prospective randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy. Surgery 112: 497–501PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR, McDougall EM, Soper NJ, Figenshau RS, Chandhoke PS, Albala DM (1992) Laparoscopic nephrectomy: a review of 16 cases. Surg Laparosc Endosc 2: 29–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dallemagne B, Weerts JM, Jehaes C, Markiewicz S, Lombard R (1991) Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication: preliminary report. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1: 138–143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gagner M (1992) Letter to the editor: laparoscopic adrenalectomy in Cushing’s syndrome and pheochromocytoma. N Engl J Med 327: 1033PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Katkhouda N, Mouiel J (1991) A new technique of surgical treatment of chronic duodenal ulcer without laparotomy by videocoelioscopy. Am J Surg 161: 361–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nagorney DM, Edis AJ (1981) A use for the stapler in pancreatic surgery. Am J Surg 142: 384–385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Phillips EH, Franklin M, Carroll BJ, Fallas MJ, Ramos R, Rosenthal D (1992) Laparoscopic colectomy. Ann Surg 216: 703–707PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Soper NJ, Barteau JA, Clayman RV, Becich MJ (1991) Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic cholecystectomy using monopolar electrocautery in the porcine model. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1: 17–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Soper NJ, Barteau JA, Clayman RV, Ashley SW, Dunnegan DL (1992) Comparison of early postoperative results for laparoscopic vs. standard open cholecystectomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 174: 114–118PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Traverso LW, MacFarlane SK (1987) Pancreatic juice in the peritoneal cavity: antibiotics or omental preservation prevent mortality. J Surg Res 43: 220–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Traverso LW, MacFarlane SK (1987) Pancreas autotransplantation-unsuitability of the swine as a model. Transplantation 44: 50CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. J. Soper
    • 1
  • L. M. Brunt
    • 1
  • D. L. Dunnegan
    • 1
  • T. A. Meininger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryWashington University School of MedicineSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations